One step that facilitators use to encourage learning in groups is the process known as learning review. Learning reviews help people to become more aware of goals, outcomes, and contextual factors that influence the way they understand a situation, assumptions that influence actions, and feelings that they cannot articulate but recognize are operative. They facilitate reflection on experience, which sometimes surfaces conflicts in points of view but also creates a process for learning from experiences about differences and reconciling conflicts based on deep probing of assumptions and beliefs. A learning review is typically guided by four questions:
What did we intend to happen?
What happened?
Why did it happen that way?
How can we improve what happened?
Facilitators can identify different ways for groups to do such learning reviews, helping the individual members gain skills in carrying them out, and encouraging them to articulate their viewpoints and discuss them openly with others. They can create a culture where conflict is expected and recognized for the value it will bring to results and where learning reviews become routine.
Two case examples of facilitated learning through reflection follow.
Case Example: After-Action Reviews
The U.S. Army developed the after-action review (AAR) for the purpose of incorporating reflection into their learning (Sullivan and Harper, 1996). AARs are structured in the learning reviews in the learning-through-experience framework we have described. They are typically held in the middle of a battle, but they are also being used in noncombat situations. It is a deliberate process to encourage individuals to be reflective and examine the unexpected and unintended without blame and with a forward-looking orientation to handle similar situations better when they arise again.
AARs focus attention on goals, which in itself can increase conscious learning. Data are collected to track actions and results so that the discussion can be based on what is called “ground truth,” that is, accurate data-based reports of what took place on the battle ground. Ground truth in the Army is collected by using computer-based technology that can provide detailed information on moves that were made. Although data are collected and reviewed, about 75 percent of the time spent in an AAR is focused reflection on why things occurred and how people can improve moving forward. Ground rules are set for dialogue and reflection that include freedom to speak up, regardless of one’s rank, a norm of honesty rather than sugarcoating or holding back for fear of reprisal, and strict avoidance of blame.
AARs are being adapted by corporations for use in noncombat situations where the enemy may not be as easily identified, the motivation for working together not as clear, and the consequences of a mistake not as obvious. Conflicts in civilian life may also not be resolved by a clear-cut win-loss outcome. As the examples throughout this chapter illustrate, conflicts are handled best with attention to the complexities of the situation, and with reflection by all of the participants.
Case Example: Using an Action Science Facilitator to Learn to Handle Conflict
Let us imagine that a businesswoman named Sue had the conversation with her team members that we present in exhibit 24.1. In this conversation, Bob (one of Sue’s peers at work) challenged Sue over a recommendation she made. Because she was upset at the brewing conflict with Bob, Sue decided to meet with an action science coach who uses our learning through reflection on experience framework.
The action science coach helps Sue to identify her explicit and implicit intentions for this interaction. At first, Sue identifies her goal as trying to get the best solution to the problem, but eventually she acknowledges her conflicting goals and emotions, such as her strong desire to win in her confrontation with Bob. She might also realize that she values looking good in front of her teammates, especially in light of her perceptions of the subtle, and not-so-subtle, gender discrimination at the company. Most of all, she wants to be respected as a professional and therefore has to decide what that means in this situation. The coach then helps Sue recognize the mismatch between her intentions (her espoused theory) and outcomes (her theory-in-use), a mismatch that stimulates Sue’s desire to learn a new way of negotiating this kind of difficult situation going forward.
Exhibit 24.1 Sue’s Dialogue with Her Teammates
What Sue Felt or Thought But Did Not Say What Sue and Teammates Said
These guys! We’ve been chewing on this question ever since we began meeting. Someone must know something about this situation that I don’t know. Sue: So, that summarizes what we have agreed to. I think we disagree about whether we think that the people we want to reach actually shop in the kind of convenience store we have targeted. I suggest that we hire ThinkRight consultants to do focus groups to check out our assumptions on this one.
What’s Bob up to now! This is coming from left field. Bob: You have been pushing those people from the moment we met. What’s in it for you to use these guys?
Here we go again. These guys are trying to make me look like I don’t know what I am doing. Sue: Huh? I am just trying to move us forward. We have been circling around this question ever since we began meeting. I want us to move forward.
What do I do with this one . . . he’s made it look like, if I confront him, he’s right. The jerk! He’s not really joking. Bob: Yeah, yeah. I know how you women work. Give you an inch and you take a mile [as if in humor; laughter all around from others]. You are just trying to railroad your decision through. [Others nod in agreement; no one else speaks up.]
As they review the conflict, the coach probes Sue’s assumptions about her teammates and her interactions with them, and asks about Bob’s likely reasoning as well. This process will make it clear to Sue that she and Bob have very different framings and interpretations of the situation. Since they are both influenced by deeply held beliefs and values, these strong feelings are affecting their behavior toward each other. These feelings may lead them to actions that actually create the consequences that they say they do not wish to experience.
When the coach helps Sue to map the links between her assumptions, her emotions, and the ways both shape her actions, Sue can see how the chain of consequences is directly connected to her initial assumptions and emotions. Exhibit 24.2 illustrates this kind of mapping. It takes some time to map this kind of causal linkage with any degree of accuracy, as the coach has to test various interpretations. People’s responses often reflect views in the dominant culture, but the goal must be to map Sue’s own sense of the causal linkages. Ultimately the coach helps Sue to see that her interpretations are likely to lead her to the very gap she says she wants to avoid between her various stated intentions and the likely outcomes from the interaction: she wants to be seen as a professional, but her actions are not appropriate for the situation at hand, and may well be seen by her colleagues as unprofessional.
Underlying beliefs and values and habits of behavior—Sue’s, Bob’s, the other teammates’, and the company’s—are not easily changed even when they might be recognized as unproductive. Using the learning-through-reflection-on-experience framework, the coach supports Sue’s personal reflection as well as her critical reflection on the situation at work, including Sue’s perceptions of discrimination. Over a series of sessions, the coach can work with Sue to develop her ability to reflect on her day-to-day experiences, strengthening her understanding and skill at handling conflict.
By mapping out responses in a variety of situations, reflecting and discussing those reflections with others, people can identify deeper patterns that cause conflict. When this kind of process happens across many organizations, it may begin to produce a change in the cultural patterns themselves. For example, when Karen Watkins at the University of Georgia taught a graduate course in action science (Marsick and Watkins, 1999), two individuals from different organizations had brought in cases in which sexual harassment was an underlying theme. In the group discussion that ensued, many individuals agreed that this was a significant societal concern.
The class mapped these themes using common responses, and the way in which these responses would have to change in order to allow greater learning to occur. These maps are shown in table 24.1. Action science can help to make public issues that otherwise could not easily be addressed because of potential repercussions.
Exhibit 24.2 Mapping One Possible Set of Causal Links in Sue’s Case
Table 24.1 Action Science Map around Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
Source: Marsick and Watkins (1999).
ENCOURAGING DIALOGUE AND NEW IDEAS IN OUR LEARNING THROUGH REFLECTION ON EXPERIENCE FRAMEWORK
As the examples show, people are often blind to their own views. Mezirow (1991, 1997) recommends dialogue and what he calls “rational discourse” as a way of identifying and considering preferred ways of acting. The conditions for discourse seem impossibly idealistic at first glance:
Those participating have full information; are free from coercion; have equal opportunity to assume the various roles of discourse (to advance beliefs, challenge, defend, explain, assess evidence, and judge arguments); become critically reflective of assumptions; are empathic and open to other perspectives; are willing to listen and to search for common ground or a synthesis of different points of view; and can make a tentative best judgment to guide action. (Mezirow 1997, p. 10)
Despite these seemingly impossible standards, we have created action science dialogue groups based on our framework, and results show that they in fact stimulate a broader exploration of relevant issues and ideas.
In our work, we have found that it is easier to help a person to identify, name, and deal with powerful feelings after a real or perceived conflict or threat occurs. All facilitators should seek to create empathic zones in which participants can probe, acknowledge, and address fears; separate real from imagined consequences; and facilitate brainstorming about working with the specific conflict.
Facilitators of groups can also engage people in anticipatory reflection of alternative worldviews in order to step outside current mental models that may be restricting new insights and skill development. Some theorists find that expressive ways of tapping into tacit experiential knowing can aid individuals in breaking through their habits and be open to new insights (Yorks and Kasl, 2006; Davis-Manigaulte et al., 2006). For example, Richard Leachman (1999) uses abstract paintings along with word descriptions to help people create, populate, visit, and experience new worlds. He then invites people to revisit a problem through the lens of experience created by their foray into this alternative space. Other experiential educators engage people in dance, poetry, metaphor, guided imagery, or painting. Bruce Copley (1999) designs learning experiences that use all of the senses. Activities such as these help set the stage for creating an empathic zone where new insights can be found.
CONCLUSION
We have introduced, described, and illustrated a framework for learning through reflection on experience that we believe holds potential for those who help others to address and learn from conflict. The value of reflection is that it is available to everyone. At the same time, as Ellen Langer (1989) has observed regarding a similar capacity for mindfulness, the very availability of mindfulness may make people discount its usefulness or take it for granted.
In order to use reflection to learn from experience, people have to slow down their thinking process so that they can critically assess it. They need to get in touch with deeper feelings, thoughts, and factors that lie outside their current mental and sensory models for taking in and interpreting the world that they encounter. Although some individuals may find this process disconcerting and at times difficult, we believe that individuals need to step outside the frameworks and cultural norms by which they understand experience. At these moments, reflection can lead to new insight, but it is often a process that needs support from facilitators and trusted other people who can encourage the reflective process. As people develop new capabilities and habits, ongoing reflection on their experiences will help them learn additional skills and more nuanced approaches to complex situations.
When applied to conflict and learning to handle conflict, our framework of learning through reflection on experience can support individuals as they seek to change their patterns and styles of negotiating, building alternative patterns over time that will help them to resolve the conflicts in their lives more successfully.
References
Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schön. Theory in Practice: Increasing Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schön. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
Boud, David, Ruth Cohen, and David Walker, eds. Using Experience for Learning. Buckingham, UK, and Briston, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1993.
Copley, Bruce. “Cogmotics: Breathing Life into Education and Learning through the Fine Art of Holistic Animation.” Presentation at the Annual Conference of the Management Institute, Lund, Sweden, May 1999.
Cseh, Maria. “Managerial Learning in the Transition to a Free Market Economy in Romanian Private Companies.” PhD dissertation, University of Georgia, 1998.
Cseh, Maria, Karen E. Watkins, and Victoria Marsick. “Reconceptualizing Marsick and Watkins’ Model of Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace.” In K. Peter Kuchinke, ed., Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference. Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development, 1999.
Davis-Manigaulte, Jacqueline, Lyle Yorks, and Elizabeth Kasl. “Expressive Ways of Knowing and Transformative Learning.” In Edward W. Taylor, ed., Teaching for Change: Transformative Learning in the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1938.
Heron, John. Feeling and Personhood: Psychology in Another Key. London: Sage, 1992.
Jarvis, Peter. Paradoxes of Learning: On Becoming an Individual in Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.
Kolb, David. Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.
Langer, Ellen J. Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
Leachman, Robert. “Experiential Simulations of World Views and Basic Assumptions.” Presentation at the Annual Conference of the Management Institute, Lund, Sweden, May 1999.
Marsick, Victoria J., and Karen Watkins. Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. London: Routledge, 1990.
Marsick, Victoria J., and Karen Watkins. Facilitating the Learning Organization: Making Learning Count. London: Gower, 1999.
Mezirow, Jack. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Mezirow, Jack. “Transformation Theory of Adult Learning.” In Michael R. Welton, ed., In Defense of the Lifeworld: Critical Perspectives on Adult Learning. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Mezirow, Jack. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” In Patricia Cranton, ed., Transformative Learning in Action: Insights from Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Schön, Donald. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
Stone, Douglas, and Bruce Patton. Difficult Conversations. New York: Penguin Books, 2000.
Sullivan, Gordon R., and Harper, Michael V. Hope Is Not a Method: What Business Leaders Can Learn from America’s Army. New York: Broadway Books, 1996.
Thompson, Leigh. The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall, 2005.
Torbert, William R. “The Practice of Action Inquiry.” In Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, eds., Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
Volpe, Marie, Victoria J. Marsick, and Karen E. Watkins. “Theory and Practice of Informal Learning in the Knowledge Era.” In Victoria Marsick and Marie Volpe, eds., Informal Learning in the Work
place. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler, 1999.
Watkins, Karen, and Marsick, Victoria J. Sculpting the Learning Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Weaver, Dorothy E. “How Professional Women Learn to Speak Up and Negotiate for Themselves in the Workplace.” EdD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2011. http://gradworks.umi.com/34/84/3484283.html
Yorks, Lyle, and Elizabeth Kasl. “Toward a Theory and Practice for Whole-Person Learning: Reconceptualizing Experience and the Role of Affect.” Adult Education Quarterly 52 (2002):176–192.
Yorks, L., and Kasl, E. “I Know More Than I Can Say: A Taxonomy for Using Expressive Ways of Knowing to Foster Transformative Learning.” Journal of Transformative Education, 2006, 4 (1):1-22.
Zuckerman, A., and Chaiken, S. “Mood Influences Persuasion in an Interpersonal Setting.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC, May 1997.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 85